Land of Confusion

by John Reblin

Finally, some sun, warmth and riding the bike. Spring is here, awareness rallies are underway and it is the time of the year thoughts turn to riding. Hopefully you gave your bike that spring checkup, you have scheduled a rider education course and just sat on the bike to get familiar with the controls before heading out on that first ride of the year, yea!

  A couple of months ago, I wrote about unintended consequences and the concerns I had when things are done or laws are passed without any regard of the “well if we do this, what is going to happen with that”. We are seeing this happen with some of the bills we are trying to get passed and I saw it a few weekends ago at the Lifesavers Conference in Louisville KY with Gary Klinker.

  The conference, put on by the good folks at NHTSA, gets people together to create sessions that promote their versions of road safety. Topics discussed were, pedestrian and bicycle issues, autonomous vehicles, and drugs and distracted driving, among others. And for the 2 days we attended the conference, we were getting confusing statements from the presenters.

  Where should I start? Let’s grab impaired riding. It seems now that Utah has decided to go for .05 as the bench mark for impaired riding a few other states are thinking, hey, that sounds like a great idea to solve our issues, right? I don’t think so. There is talk about the lower BAC being introduced on the federal level. Walking around the vendor display, interlocks are being demonstrated and when asked, some states allowed the interlock on motorcycles, but some did not. A group from Colorado gave a breakout for the repeat offender, saying we really need to look at social intervention and dig to find out why the person is getting 4-5 even 10 DWI’s. The idea is that jail is expensive, and the rate of the person reoffending is pretty high, so let’s see if something like this works. I am really not sure about intervention. Hopefully Colorado is keeping track of results and can give some valid points on trying to lower the issues on the road. But by lowering the BAC level, won’t we run the risk of more offenders?

  The bike and pedestrian people are bringing up talking points again about making the streets safer for non-motorized traffic. They feel that shrinking the road width in areas to give the bikes a safe space and forcing traffic to slow down is a start. Promotion of separate pathways, keeping them away from the roadways and sidewalks are also being promoted, but the costs are high. Some states are promoting the “Idaho Stop” theory. This is where a bicycle uses a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign. Their thought is it will keep the bikes out of motorist’s way at intersections and keep traffic moving better. You see, the fatality rate for these groups is going up across the county and it is felt that this concept would help lower those numbers. My questions about promoting safe usage by these groups obeying road signs, being properly marked, and oh yeah, maybe being sober did not go over too big. I have heard that because of the fear of a DWI, many people are parking their vehicle and walking or riding a bicycle at night causing additional issues for drivers. Without any real enforcement towards these groups, they need to turn to other avenues to protect them on the roads.

  Autonomous vehicles had their share of breakouts. You see, after states are saying oh yeah let’s allow testing of these vehicles on the road, we need to figure out how to control those vehicles and the issues we are running into. Things discussed were how to respond to crashes and incidents. Is it a battery powered car, how is that handled? How will they interact with pedestrians and motorcycles? How does the cop know it is an automated vehicle and how will he pull them over and write the ticket? Oh, and then there is the disabled person. Who will assist them into a self-driving vehicle? Who assist them on the automated bus? How will a blind person know which bus they are getting on, and what problems will a deaf person have?

  Drugs also was brought up because states are starting to legalize the use of marijuana both medicinally and for recreational use. Now the discussions are, how do we enforce those laws? There is no legal way to test impairment. Many cases now involve combined usage with alcohol. Law enforcement tests for BAC but they don’t check further for THC if the person’s blood alcohol content is .08 or greater.

  The “Tall Cop” was there talking about looking for illegal drugs and tactics used. He brought up some really good facts about POT. Now I do not, or never did use it, but back in the day when I would have tried it the THC level in POT was 3. Now the stuff you get out there is at about a level of 18. People are starting to vape the stuff and those levels are around 70 THC. So, the word is you can get pretty messed up on it. States that have legalized it are seeing crash rates going up. And even though it is legal in your state, drug testing by your employer still counts. Oh, and CDL? Yeah, you’re done if tested positive. So, how do we ok this stuff on one hand but try to enforce it later on?

As far as motorcycle specific breakouts go there was one that really was confusing. Senator Hilkemann spoke of their achievements for defeating the repeal laws from members in their state. His personal thoughts were, they would never be able to change the law in Nebraska.

  OFC. Dixon from California designed a program and got funding similar to the UBBC in Wisconsin where they use cones and a real-life road course design to imitate road situations. Called, Coffee with A Cop, 30 students and 6 motor officers work together on braking, turning and other exercises to mimic things you may encounter on the road. These things included the students riding with the police following behind them having their sirens blaring to increase stress while riding. I thought the idea behind the course was very cool.

  A rider coach from Michigan, Dan Peterson, pushed me over the edge. He really was the anti-training guy bringing up that awareness and training could not be proven to work. He also suggested that there was no proof that not having an endorsement was a contributing factor in fatalities. I was totally surprised that he would bring this up in this venue. Can a person be a great rider without an endorsement? Absolutely, but the loss of that license can indicate poor decision making that could cause the crash. Not going in for testing can indicate lack of skills, due to lack of training or education.

  Other comments brought up during this presentation included graduated licensing, stability control and enhanced braking, strong government influences. So, think helmet, visibility factors, interlocks for motorcyclists, along with impairment due to drugs.

  Obviously, we all know that awareness does work and that reminding other road users to “look for motorcycles” keeps us safer. As we roll into May and the rest of the riding season, we need to remember to keep promoting awareness for the entire year.